I don't see "it" in this sentence. Shouldn't it then be אני שולח את זה לך
But wouldn't that be like saying " I send to you" is identical to "I send it to you" ? I mean, wouldn't it be more accurate not to include the option where "IT" is found ?
In English you usually won't say "I send to you" without mentioning what is it that you send. In Hebrew it is perfectly fine.
How do we distinguish between sending something TO a person and sending the PERSON somewhere?
the preposition לך means to you. Sending the person would take the preposition אותך.
My textbook (Lyttleton/Wang) gives the following pronunciation for the verb form: sholEakh. In the audio the pronunciation is fast and not very clear to me.
Since the "it" is implied in Hebrew, but necessary in English, it might have been better to translate it as "I am sending (it) to you". Any thoughts on that?
The English "I send you" has an absolutely different meaning from "I am sending IT TO you," so "I send you" shouldn't be accepted.
So 'I am sending you' should not be accepted as a correct English translation. It sounds like the person 'you' is being sent somewhere.
Lecha is rather "to you", thus the translation being "I send (it) to you"; if "you" is an accusative object, it would be 'Otcha.
But we can say "I am sending you something" so it does need to be accepted.
It should not. As a complete sentence "I am sending you" means something entirely different to what the Hebrew is saying. You can elide the object in Hebrew, but if you do so in English, 'you' becomes the object.
I agree with the comment above. In English this should be "I send it to you."
Well English is crazy, but 'I send for you' means something different again. It means that I ask (or order) you to come. For example 'My father is ill, send for the doctor.'
Rather than using "אני שולח" we might use something like "אני דורש" to say I send for. Different verb.
Sorry. Couldn't resist the temptation to channel Wayne's World. But I'm hearing the sound, so it's probably at your end.